Thursday, March 31, 2016

The New Part-Time Job: “Get Paid $15 An Hour To Protest At The Trump Rally”

http://shtfplan.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/pay4protest2.jpg

Anti-Trump protestors = hired thugs.

_________________________________________________________________________________


For those wondering why Trump rallies tend to devolve to pugilistic matches, where even belligerent 15-year-old protesting (or perhaps “provocative” is a better word) girls end up getting pepper sprayed much to the media’s fascination, the answer is Craig’s List ads such as the one below, in which allegedly “I’m feelin’ the Bern“-affiliated organizers provide paid positions for protesters at Trump rallies, and which provide not only shuttle buses, parking, and signs (as well as time cards) but also hand out $15/hour (as a “part-time employment”) for said protest activity “due to the economic inequality.”
Well that’s one way to cover the “minimum wage.”
This particular ad has since been removed by its author, although as the Daily Caller recently pointed out, this is a recurring pattern as anti-Trump protesters openly admit answering Craigslist ads and getting paid to protest at Trump rallies. This is what the DC said previously:
The Establishment on both the left and the right, who want to disenfranchise the millions of Republican voters who support Donald Trump, have blamed the staged riots near Trump rallies on Trump or on Bernie Sanders. That’s like blaming the Russians for the Reichstag Fire. Bernie has little to do with these manufactured protests. This is a Clinton operation, a faux protest.
False flag operations have long been common in politics, but these riots are poisonous to the electorate, intentionally designed to turn violent and stifle free speech.
This free speech-busting goon squad operation is directed by supporters of Hillary Clinton. It is paid for mostly by George Soros and MoveOn.org and pushed by David Brock at Media Matters for America. It’s also funded by reclusive billionaire Jonathan Lewis, who was identified by the Miami New Times as a “mystery man.” He inherited roughly a billion dollars from his father Peter Lewis (founder of Progressive Insurance Company).
A march and demonstration against Trump at Trump Tower essentially fizzled Saturday when only 500 “protesters” of the promised 5000 showed up. Infiltrating the crowd, I learned most were from MoveOn or the Occupy movement. Soap was definitely in short supply in this crowd. Several admitted answering a Craig’s list ad paying $16.00 an hour for protesters.
Hillary understands that Trump would lose the votes of certain establishment Republicans if he were the nominee. On the other hand, it doesn’t matter, because of his crossover outreach. In Michigan, Democrats and independents who have lost their jobs because of disastrous globalist trade deals like NAFTA are lining up to vote for Donald.

Another Climate Alarmist Admits Real Motive Behind Warming Scare

http://www.investors.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/EDIT3-scorch-032916-AP.jpg


The environmental / global warming movement is a “watermelon”: “green” on the outside but “red” on the inside.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Global warming alarmists have effectively sown fright but done a poor job of hiding their real motivation. Another reveals what’s driving the climate scare.
          
Fraud: While the global warming alarmists have done a good job of spreading fright, they haven’t been so good at hiding their real motivation. Yet another one has slipped up and revealed the catalyst driving the climate scare.
We have been told now for almost three decades that man has to change his ways or his fossil-fuel emissions will scorch Earth with catastrophic warming. Scientists, politicians and activists have maintained the narrative that their concern is only about caring for our planet and its inhabitants. But this is simply not true. The narrative is a ruse. They are after something entirely different.
If they were honest, the climate alarmists would admit that they are not working feverishly to hold down global temperatures — they would acknowledge that they are instead consumed with the goal of holding down capitalism and establishing a global welfare state.
Have doubts? Then listen to the words of former United Nations climate official Ottmar Edenhofer:
“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole,” said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015.
So what is the goal of environmental policy?
“We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy,” said Edenhofer.
For those who want to believe that maybe Edenhofer just misspoke and doesn’t really mean that, consider that a little more than five years ago he also said that “the next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated.”
Mad as they are, Edenhofer’s comments are nevertheless consistent with other alarmists who have spilled the movement’s dirty secret. Last year, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change,made a similar statement.
“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” she said in anticipation of last year’s Paris climate summit.
“This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”
The plan is to allow Third World countries to emit as much carbon dioxide as they wish — because, as Edenhofer said, “in order to get rich one has to burn coal, oil or gas” — while at the same time restricting emissions in advanced nations. This will, of course, choke economic growth in developed nations, but they deserve that fate as they “have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community,” he said. The fanaticism runs so deep that one professor has even suggested that we need to plunge ourselves into a depression to fight global warming.
Perhaps Naomi Klein summed up best what the warming the fuss is all about in her book “This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate.”
“What if global warming isn’t only a crisis?” Klein asks in a preview of a documentary inspired by her book. “What if it’s the best chance we’re ever going to get to build a better world?”
In her mind, the world has to “change, or be changed” because an “economic system” — meaning free-market capitalism — has caused environmental “wreckage.”
This is how the global warming alarmist community thinks. It wants to frighten, intimidate and then assume command. It needs a “crisis” to take advantage of, a hobgoblin to menace the people, so that they will beg for protection from the imaginary threat. The alarmists’ “better world” is one in which they rule a global welfare state. They’ve admitted this themselves.

Tense Scene Unfolds When Black Woman Accuses White Student of Cultural Appropriation for Dreadlocks

http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Screen-Shot-2016-03-29-at-9.26.53-PM-620x345.jpg

San Francisco State University said Tuesday it had opened an investigation after a viral video captured a black female student accuse a while male student of cultural appropriation for having dreadlocks. A 46-second video uploaded to YouTube captured an unidentified woman accost student Cory Goldstein in a hallway...

Wednesday, March 30, 2016

'Empire' Flops Overseas as Foreign Viewers Resist Hollywood's Diversity Push

Hmmm…Maybe people overseas want to watch “good” shows rather than just shows with “diversity” in the casting.

_________________________________________________________________________________________

Driven by the ratings success of shows with mainly nonwhite casts — Empire, Black-ish and Fresh Off the Boat — along with political pressure to make shows better reflect their diverse audience, American TV outlets increasingly are greenlighting series that feature black, Asian and Latino leads. Fox's 24: Legacy, a reboot of the Kiefer Sutherland series, stars Corey Hawkins, famous as Dr. Dre from Straight Outta Compton. CBS has Rush Hour, based on the action movie franchise, starring Jon Foo a…

Man arrested in Vermont with equivalent of 1,400 bags of heroin in his body -police

FYI: It is the M.O. of Mexican heroin pushers to carry the heroin in balloons in their mouth. Then if they are stopped by the police they can sallow the balloons and escape detection and not lose their product. They usually keep a bottle of water nearby to help wash down the balloons. Much of heroin flooding the small cities,  suburbs and rural areas these days is being  sold by illegal immigrants from Mexico. Their intent is to build up a big nest egg for when they retire back in Mexico. Mexico is where the heroin is produced. The dealers are contacted by their customers by cell phone and then drive to the meeting place. Typically the Mexicans dealers only sell to whites to avoid being robbed.

_________________________________________________________________________________

A New York man was charged with drug trafficking and other crimes after authorities in Vermont discovered the equivalent of more than 1,400 bags of heroin hidden in his body, state police said on Wednesday.
Fernando Estrella, 41, of the Bronx was pulled over by officers in St Albans City, Vermont on Tuesday for numerous motor vehicle violations. During the stop a sniffer dog indicated the presence of drugs, Vermont State Police said in a press release.
No drugs were found in the vehicle, and police sought a warrant for a body cavity search of Estrella, the release said.
At a nearby hospital, "approximately 1428 bags worth of heroin was located in Estrella," the release said.
It did not make clear how the drugs were hidden.
Estrella faces several charges including heroin trafficking and violating conditions of release from prison for a previous drug offense, state police said.
It was unclear if Estrella had obtained an attorney or how he intends to plead to the charges. (Reporting by Victoria Cavaliere in New York; editing by Susan Thomas)

Jesuit University Moves to Fire Conservative Professor Over His Political Views - Breitbart

http://media.breitbart.com/media/2015/02/john-mcadams-afp.jpg

  Believe it or not Marquette used to be a Catholic University. One that taught and supported Christian morality and Christian religious doctrine. However, the Leftist Social Justice Warriors (SJW) long ago took the university over and re-purposed it to advancing Marxist “social justice”. So now you either support social justice or you get the hell out of Marquette.

_________________________________________________________________________________________



Marquette University has moved to suspend and then fire Professor John McAdams for backing a student who tried to defend man-woman marriage when a leftist teaching assistant shut the student down.

In the fall of 2014, junior faculty member Cheryl Abbate told a student, who secretly recorded the exchange, that his defense of man-woman marriage was an unacceptable topic in her ethics class and compared his views to racism. She said, “You can have whatever opinions you want but I can tell you right now, in this class homophobic comments, racist comments, and sexist comments will not be tolerated.” And then she told the student he should drop the class.
On this very popular blog, Professor McAdams outed the incident and charged the teaching assistant with “using a tactic typical among liberals now. Opinions with which they disagree are not merely wrong, and are not to be argued against on their merits, but are deemed ‘offensive’ and need to be shut up.”
A firestorm ensued that pitted the academic freedom of McAdams against the leftist pieties of the officially “Catholic” institution.
The teaching assistant is said to have gotten mean emails, though she was hailed as a liberal hero and went on to a tenure track position at another university. McAdams was brought up on charges.
It was announced this week that a “diverse” faculty committee recommended to the university president that McAdams be suspended without pay from April 1 through the fall of 2016 and that he lose his job unless he admits “guilt” and apologized “within the next two weeks.” Specifically, the demand is “Your acknowledgement that your November 9, 2014, blog post was reckless and incompatible with the mission and values of Marquette University and you express deep regret for the harm suffered by our former graduate student and instructor, Ms. Abbate.”
The ever quotable and crusty McAdams compared the demand to the “Inquisition, in which victims who ‘confessed’ they had been consorting with Satan and spreading heresy would be spared execution.” He called the demand a violation of “black letter guarantees of academic freedom embodied in University statutes.”
He also charges the university president with dishonesty since the faculty panel did not require such an admission of guilt or an apology. McAdams said such a statement from him would amount to a “loyalty oath” and he says he will not submit.
He also referred to Marquette’s “Catholic mission” as nothing more than a “marketing gimmick.”
Copyright © 2016 Breitbart

Atheist Group Objects to Muslim Prayer Spaces at University of Iowa - Breitbart


This is new and different! I would what made the Lefties in the FFRF decide to go after Muslims for a change? Have the Muslims been getting too uppity and not been taking directions from their Leftist masters a like good minority mascot group should?

________________________________________________________________________________________


A group known for lawsuits challenging Christian prayer in public and Bibles in schools is now objecting to a Muslim prayer space at the University of Iowa.

A litigious atheist organization known for its lawsuits challenging Christian prayer and symbols in public spaces and Bibles in public schools is now voicing objection to the designation of a Muslim prayer space at the University of Iowa (UI).

The Wisconsin-based Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF) says it is “questioning the appropriateness” of the two prayer rooms created primarily for male and female Muslim faculty and students at UI.
FFRF states in a press release:
The public university, located in Iowa City, has recently established two prayer rooms for its Muslim students. This is in addition to a longstanding university chapel that features a Latin cross. The presence of such religious venues on a public campus raises a number of issues.
By instituting areas that are exclusively used by specific religious groups such as Christians and Muslims, the University of Iowa is violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, FFRF asserts. The organization is also concerned that the university is facilitating the discriminatory practice of gender segregation practiced in the Muslim prayer rooms.
“State-run colleges have a constitutional obligation to not endorse, advance, or aid religion,” FFRF staff attorney Patrick Elliott wrote in a letter to UI president Bruce Harreld.
He continued:
When a government entity like the University of Iowa creates prayer areas for specific religions and imposes religious rules upon students (removing shoes, segregating men and women), it has unconstitutionally entangled itself with religion. The university finds itself in a position where it must either sponsor and endorse the tenets of a religion by allowing it to impose religious rules, or dictate to religious students which tenets they are allowed to follow on university property.
“It will not be long before other groups start seeking prayer rooms of their own and the University will either have to provide those rooms or risk treating certain religious views unequally and violating the First Amendment,” Elliott added. “The best way for the university to ensure that it is not violating the constitutional rights of its students is for the university to refrain from designating permanent rooms or areas for religious purposes.”
FFRF regularly cites the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment as the basis for its complaints against any faith representations in public spaces, but Breitbart News legal editor Ken Klukowski asserts, “The Establishment Clause not only permits government to accommodate the diverse Faith’s found in America, it actually encourages, as the Supreme Court declared in its 1952 Zorach case.”
“Once again, FFRF seeks to perpetrate the myth that the Constitution requires the government to purge our public spaces of all references to faith,” Klukowski adds.
While FFRF is addressing its issues with “Christian iconography” at UI as well, it is clear the newly created Muslim prayer spaces that require separate rooms for men and women are the focus of its complaint at the school.
Though Tom Rocklin, UI’s vice president for student life, said the new prayer space may be used by other students, as well, in February he told the Iowa City Press-Citizen, “These rooms are certainly going to be used primarily by Muslim students.”
The school has dedicated two rooms of the Iowa Memorial Union as the prayer space for its growing Muslim student population, which is required to pray five times per day.
“We’ve had students who have tried to find empty rooms, I’ve even heard of a student using a stairwell so we did think this was a very important and necessary thing to respond to,” Dean of Students Lyn Redington said, according to CBS2Iowa. “The University of Iowa is a global, international institution, but we want all of our students to feel welcomed.”
“Normally when I’m on campus, I try to look for an empty room, which may be hard in the day with all these students or if I can’t find a room I’ll go to the top of a staircase and just pray there,” said Mohammed Ismail, a member of the Muslim Student Association (MSA).
The UI MSA posted an announcement on Facebook last month about the opening of the prayer space. It read, “For the first time, Muslim students at the University of Iowa have a safe place to pray on campus.”
The Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) observes that the MSA of the United States and Canada was incorporated in January 1963, when members of the Muslim Brotherhood came together at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign with the goal of “spreading Islam as students in North America.”
“Islamic extremism is on the rise on college and university campuses across the United States,” IPT states. “The spread of radical Islamism on campuses has proven to be an effective tool to garner support and gain legitimacy, exploiting the right of free association with academic institutions.”
IPT maintains that the Muslim Brotherhood-influenced MSA often uses college and university campuses to gain support through campaigns based on diversity and tolerance.
“International and domestic groups that advocate extremist or radical causes frequently host lectures and other events on campuses to shore up support and recruit members,” IPT states. “Indeed, universities are a fertile field for radicals searching for the next generation of activists and sympathizers.”
FFRF states it has 23,000 members across the country.

‘What Are You Doing in My Home?’: Those Were the Words Intruders Heard From a 61-Year-Old Woman Before She Emptied the Magazine

http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/shutterstock_708085091-620x451.jpg

Hmmm… I wonder what kind of gun she was using? Maybe she should get a Glock 17. Then she could have 18 shots (17 rounds in the magazine with one in the chamber).

_________________________________________________________________________________________

A Texas woman didn’t hesitate to shoot a burglar after he and another man broke into her home in Terrell. But when she ran out of bullets, the injured intruder’s accomplice grew bolder.
The woman, a 61-year-old identified as Sharon by KTVT-TV, said she grabbed her gun after waking one evening to the sound of the two men in her home.
“I called out, ‘What are are you doing in my home,’” she told KTVT Monday.
Sharon said she then opened fire on one intruder, later identified by police as Saul Guzman, but soon found herself out of bullets.
Realizing this, the other suspect, whom police named as Pedro Guzman, proceeded to attack the 61-year-old, authorities said.
“He must have heard me clicking it, because that’s when he came back and beat me up really bad,” Sharon said. She told KTVT that she suffered a concussion and cuts and bruises on her face.
After the attack, the woman called the police, who were able to track down the injured suspect at the Texas Regional Medical Center at Sunnyvale, where he was being treated for a non-life-threatening gunshot wound to the stomach. They found Pedro Guzman, the suspected accomplice, at a gas station across the street from the hospital.
Investigators also found a stolen purse connected to a different burglary in a trash can at the gas station where Guzman was parked, Terrell Police Captain A.D. Sansom told KTVT.
“We do believe they may be responsible for other offenses in our city,” Sansom said.
Sharon shared that she will be installing a security system at her home and plans on buying another gun.
Terrell police said both suspects were charged with burglary of a habitation, theft of a firearm and burglary of a vehicle, among other charges.
“I hope other women will take note,” Sharon said. “I am glad I was able to defend myself.”
Watch:

Radio Host Confronts Trump on Heidi Cruz Attack in Brutal Interview: ‘I Expect That From a 12-Year-Old Bully’

http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/AP_566573409417.jpg

In Wisconsin we’re nice…until it’s time not to be nice!

________________________________________________________________________________________

Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump called into Wisconsinite Charlie Sykes’ radio show just days ahead of the state’s primary, unaware that the show host is part of the #NeverTrump movement — and the conversation was brutal.
“Welcome to Wisconsin, and I know you realize that here in Wisconsin, we value things like civility, decency and actual conservative principles, so let’s possibly make some news,” Sykes charged.
The Radio 620 WTMJ host spent the first half of the 17-minute interview pressing Trump for an apology for his attack on GOP rival Ted Cruz’s wife, Heidi, by retweeting a post featuring a flattering image of the businessman’s wife, Melania, who is a supermodel, next to an unflattering image of Cruz’s spouse, along with the text, “The images are worth a thousand words.”
The controversial retweet by Trump came after a conservative super PAC unaffiliated with Cruz’s campaign published an ad ahead of last week’s Utah caucuses featuring a risqué image of Trump’s wife along with the text, “Meet Melania Trump. Your next first lady. Or you could support Ted Cruz on Tuesday.”
“You know, wouldn’t it be a good way to start off your Wisconsin campaign by saying that wives should be off limits, and apologize for mocking [Heidi Cruz's] looks?” Sykes asked Trump.
The brash billionaire, however, stood his ground, telling Sykes that Cruz “totally knew about” the super PAC’s ad. Trump said if he didn’t believe Cruz knew about the Utah ad, “it would be a totally different thing.”
“So is this your standard — if the supporter of a candidate and not the candidate himself does something despicable, then it’s OK for you personally, the candidate for president of the United States, to behave in that same way?” Sykes pushed back. “I mean, I expect that from a 12-year-old bully on the playground, not somebody wanting the office held by Abraham Lincoln.”
Trump continued his defense of his Twitter post, telling Sykes that the image he tweeted “was a retweet” and a “very minor response” to the Utah ad. In fact, Trump said, “I didn’t even know it was necessarily a bad picture of [Heidi] versus Melania.”
Sykes also played an ad featuring women reading less-than-complimentary things Trump has said about women in the past, asking him how he will defend himself against those comments. In response, the brash real estate mogul said “women are just going to have to see what I’ve done,” noting the “tremendous numbers of women” he’s hired and placed in executive positions within the Trump Organization.
Additionally, Trump defended his past comments about women by saying he has been in the entertainment business and has “been quoted over the years by everybody from the time, almost from the time I started business.”
“Are the rules different for celebrities?” Sykes asked. “Are celebrities allowed to insult women? … You have mocked Megyn Kelly, you have mocked Carly Fiorina.”
Perhaps Sykes’ boldest confrontation of Trump came when he asked the GOP front-runner how parents should “explain” his comments about women and his attack on Cruz’s wife.
“How should fathers and mothers explain this? I mean, is this the way you would want anyone, do you want your sons to be behave—,” Sykes said.
Trump cut the radio host off, dodging the question by telling him he thought the controversial retweet of Cruz’s wife was a “dead issue” and that he would rather be talking about trade, border security and “the things I’m best at.”
Among the issues the two discussed, Trump and Sykes talked about the New Yorker’s liberal history, the many donations he has made to Democrats and trade, an issue that has given Trump some problems as many have said he is not truly conservative on the issue because he has suggested restricting free trade in order to keep jobs inside the United States.
“Why shouldn’t conservatives here in Wisconsin think that your claim to be a conservative is just a giant fraud?” Sykes asked, to which Trump said he was Republican but “gave money to all politicians, … which is a thing that every businessman would do.”
Toward the end of the interview, Sykes dropped a major, unexpected question for Trump: “Before you called into my show, did you know that I’m a #NeverTrump guy?”
“That I didn’t know,” Trump said. “But I assume you’re also an intelligent guy – I know you’re an intelligent guy — and you understand what’s going on. Our country is getting ripped off left and right by every country we do business with.”
Ultimately, though, Sykes ended the interview telling Trump he “failed in my effort to introduce you to Wisconsin in our tradition of civility and decency by getting an apology from you for Heidi Cruz.”
But Trump stood firm, saying the Utah ad was not from an outside group and Cruz knew about it, asking Sykes, “Is Ted Cruz going to apologize?”
“Do you ever apologize?” Sykes shot back. “Most real men, when they screw up, they’ll go, ‘You know what, I was a hothead, I shouldn’t have done that.’”
Trump refused to apologize until Cruz apologizes to him because “he started it.”

Audience walks out on Trumpophobic comedian - DailyKenn.com

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjWKZpSds1bummYfYWR8HTyZIBejlMIQWTksT799q_cmDvodcfhnUfnVYP-Ex6ALGl860p17YiOINlMFzxweLBQ-ooUeiTOVkI362BUsXAyILrRYSWD7p1TT1JSnLi0s5di6bl4XSzu2X54/w1200-h630-p-nu/a.jpg

Margret Cho never was funny. People have finally figured it out. It’s always astonishing to realize what disturbed and unhappy people so many Liberal comedians really are. Like Robin Williams for example. Cho is just the latest to have mental breakdown.

_______________________________________________________________________________

Margaret Cho wasn't being funny. At least that appears to be the reaction of her audience earlier this week. 

After ranting about being raped, the 47-year-old speculated that Trump's white privilege would lead him to the White House. 
Most of the audience walked out. Those who remained talked among themselves. It seems white-people bashing is no longer effective. 
From pagesix.com:


Another source who witnessed the meltdown tells us, “She walked two-thirds of the audience, and they generally weren’t even angry, just concerned for her safety. [Cho] was so incoherent onstage that a table of doctors at the show said they stayed despite the poor performance for fear that she would need medical attention.” 
After the show, Cho tweeted about the incident, insisting jet lag was to blame. She also encouraged rape survivors to speak out about abuse. 
Stress Factory owner Vinnie Brand released a statement on Monday about Saturday’s debacle.


“She kept going even though the entire audience was either walking out the door or talking amongst themselves, and she kept asking why people were talking. When she noticed a guy in the front row with his back to her, she started yelling about white privilege and said the audience was victim-blaming because she was trying to inform us about rape,” another witness said. “Then she said that Trump will win the election because of everyone’s white privilege. By that time, most of the crowd had left and were hanging out outside, and the people who were left started screaming back and forth, and a scuffle broke out.” 
https://static01.nyt.com/images/2016/03/30/world/asia/30RUSSIA/30RUSSIA-facebookJumbo.jpg

“The first law of war is to preserve ourselves and destroy the enemy.”- Mao Ze Dong

Why not? Terrorists always target their enemies’ families (“Nice family you got, be a shame if something happened to them, eh?”). Conversely such a "fight fire with fire" policy always worked real well for the Saudis over the years too. Nothing makes the Terrorists , especially suicide bombers, restrain themselves like targeting their families for punishment. A Jihadist may be motivated to sacrifice himself take out a crowd of infidels but would he be as motivated if he knew he would likewise be condemning his whole extended family to death? The families themselves are less tolerant of terrorism and revolution when they are in danger of getting thrown in prison (or worse) anytime an attack happens. Then the police get a lot more anonymous tips about terrorist activity (Surprise!). It’s war: destroy the enemy AND his will to fight!

_________________________________________________________________________

Donald J. Trump was widely condemned when he called for the United States to “take out the families” of terrorists. But Russia has been doing that for years.

MOSCOW — Donald J. Trump, the leading Republican presidential candidate, was widely condemned when he called for the United States to “take out the families” of terrorists.
His approach — even after he clarified that he was not talking about killing the relatives — was dismissed by many as immoral and unlawful. Yet, it is the very tactic that Russia has pursued for decades.
It is the signature, though officially unacknowledged, policy behind Moscow’s counterinsurgency and counterterrorism strategies, and Russia’s actions in smashing a Muslim separatist rebellion in the Caucasus provide a laboratory for testing Mr. Trump’s ideas.
The family ties that bind in terrorist groups came into focus last week after the police in Brussels disclosed that two of the three suicide bombers in the attacks there were brothers, Ibrahim and Khalid el-Bakraoui. All told, analysts estimate that a third of the participants in terrorist acts are related to another attacker.
In the conflict that began in Chechnya and has since metastasized into a loosely organized Islamic rebellion throughout the Caucasus region, Russian security services routinely arrest, torture and kill relatives, rights groups say.
The Russian approach, enough to make supporters of waterboarding wince, has by some accounts been grimly effective. Abductions of family members unwound the rebel leadership in Chechnya, for example.
And siblings have a bloody track record here, as elsewhere.
In 2004, Chechen sisters blew themselves up in an airplane and a subway station a week apart. In 2011, the police say, a teenager and his older sister from Ingushetia, another troubled region, helped build a bomb that their brother exploded in the unguarded arrivals hall of Domodedovo Airport in Moscow, killing himself and 36 other people.
In the Russian view, the family is the thread that needs to be pulled to unravel the terrorist group.
“He should understand his relatives will be treated as accomplices,” Kirill V. Kabanov, a member of President Vladimir V. Putin’s human rights council, said of a potential suicide attacker.
“When a person leaves to become a terrorist, he can kill hundreds of innocents,” he said. “Those are the morals we are talking about. We should understand, the relatives must fight this first. If the relative, before the fact, reported it, he is not guilty. If he did not, he is guilty.”
By law, Russian security services have no authority to specifically target relatives. But the intelligence forces seldom let a detail like the lack of a legal basis interfere with their activities.
In Chechnya and neighboring Dagestan, they routinely burn or demolish the houses of people suspected of being insurgents or terrorists. Most strikingly, whole extended families are rounded up in high-profile cases, and are often held until the militant either gives up or is killed.
Maryam Akmedova, from Kabardino-Balkaria region in the North Caucasus, has seen it firsthand. Distressing though it was, she says she understood when Russian prosecutors accused her eldest son of participating in a terrorist attack, as he had never denied his involvement.
But her woes hardly stopped there.
Soon enough, security agents were questioning her younger son, though there was no evidence linking him to the attack his brother was accused of in the city of Nalchik in 2005. Eventually, the younger brother was shot and killed in 2013 by Russian security forces during an attempted arrest under murky circumstances.
“He had no involvement with anything,” Ms. Akmedova said in a telephone interview. “They killed him because his brother was in prison.”
The most sweeping application of the tactic came during the pacification of Chechnya, after Mr. Putin engineered the recapture of the separatist territory early in his tenure.
Relatives were used as “hooks” to lure in militants. If the militant did not switch sides, the family member disappeared.Chechnya had about 3,000 to 5,000 unresolved disappearances from 2000 to 2005 or so. The policy, executed by the Chechen leader, Ramzan A. Kadyrov, the scion of a prominent Chechen family that itself switched sides, broke the organized resistance.
The Russian security services have also manipulated relatives for various ends, such as to inadvertently pass poisoned food to suspected militants on the run.
The practice, not surprisingly, has spawned dozens of cases in the European Court of Human Rights and widespread criticism of tactics that, while seemingly effective in the short term, have deeply alienated extended families whose members bear grudges to this day.
“There is systematic abuse of the family members of insurgents,” Ekaterina Sokirianskaia, an analyst at the International Crisis Group, and an expert on the Caucasus, said in a telephone interview.
“There can be short-term results, but I wouldn’t call it success,” she said. “You can prevent some episodes of violence at the moment, but you are radicalizing whole communities.”
“When innocent Muslims are targeted for the expediency of security services, this legitimizes the jihadist cause,” she said.
Ms. Akmedova explained how the sense of injustice and outrage develops. After her younger son was killed in 2013, she said, the police came by and told her and her son’s widow that the grandchildren, despite being in kindergarten and elementary school, would be put on watch lists.
“The children go to kindergarten,” Ms. Akmedova, 63, a retired drugstore clerk, said. “They are no different from any other children.”
In perhaps the highest-profile operation, Russian security services detained in 2004 several dozen members of the extended family of the Chechen rebel defense minister, Magomed Khambiyev, including the wives of his brothers. Aslanbek Khambiyev, a 19-year-old cousin with no known ties, other than familial, was abducted from a university, beaten semiconscious and shoved from a car in the rebel leader’s home village.
“Yes, they detained my relatives,” Magomed Khambiyev told the Kommersant newspaper after he surrendered to save their lives. “But they were guilty. Do you understand? Because they were my relatives.”
“If I’m a bandit, then they’re bandits, too,” he explained.

Articles: Another Reveal into Obama’s Confused Psyche

http://www.americanthinker.com/assets/images/at-painter-og-image.png

  Our President is a typical muddle-headed Leftist. To be a Leftist you must believe all sorts of preposterous things. Consequently Leftists are frequently afflicted with all sorts of psychopathologies and delusional beliefs. President Obama is intentionally withdrawing American influence from the world, because he believes that America has just been wrong in all its dealings with other countries. He believes America deserves to be humbled and have its power diminished. The fact that he criticizes America and apologizes for it to foreign audiences so often is abundant evidence of that. Of course it would be impolitic for him to come right out and tell everyone that he is dismantling America power. But most of America’s enemies as well as allies have already figured it out. Naturally a Clinton or Sanders Presidency would finish the job. Hang on to your hat.

________________________________________________________________________

President Obama’s deep-seated narcissism and overweening self-regard is old news to objective observers of his administration. That Obama is an odd psychological duck is a given, but when new facets reveal themselves it is often train-wreck fascinating, reinforcing a sense of wonderment that this man was twice elected, and dread that he still has nine months left in office. The most recent surprise comes in the Atlantic’s wordy apologia for Obama’s disastrous foreign policy, which focuses on the President’s feckless decision to retreat from his “red line” for direct American intervention in the Syrian civil war. That Obama, to the shock of allies and even his own inner circle backed down, is well known. TheAtlantic’s revelation that he is “Very proud of that moment” and indeed considers it courageous act, demonstrates just how warped is Obama’s psyche.
In 2012 Obama famously drew a red line over the Syrian government’s use of chemical weapons, following a sarin gas attack that killed over 1000 civilians. And then a year later Obama turned tail when challenged by the Syrians, although the military, America’s allies, and even his inner circle of advisors believed American action was necessary and imminent. The targets were selected and the armed forces prepared. In Hillary Clinton’s words “If you say you’re going to strike you have to strike.  There is no choice.” It’s not often that Hillary is right, but Obama’s spineless bungling was so obvious that most everybody, including America’s friends and enemies, understood exactly what had occurred. Most everybody that is, except Obama himself.   
Somehow Obama twisted this failure into a success in his own mind. To comprehend just how convoluted one’s thinking must be to get there, let’s consider what a “red line” or more commonly “a line in the sand” really means in normal human understanding. 
At its core, a line in the sand is the point of no return, which the man who draws it must honor, or lose all face and credibility. In modern foreign policy and military parlance, this phrase is usually rendered as a “red line,” a term particularly associated with the State of Israel, which has over the years survived and prospered by employing and enforcing various limits on what it could tolerate from enemies and rivals. The most important thing to understand about a “red line” is that it’s as much a statement of determination and principle, as it is an attempt to deter specific actions. 
A “line in the sand” is a well-worn literary trope for good reason -- it gets at very fundamental understandings of honor, commitment and bravery that even children can grasp. In its most common form, the Western film, the provocations that make the hero draw the line are far less important than that he makes his stand and doesn’t back down. 
Obama inverts this understanding to make himself the hero for backing down, when everyone else (other than his most devoted sycophants) sees something else. The Atlantic article partially describes Obama’s thought process. In his own mind Obama decided to be “controversial.” He refused to follow the “playbook in Washington.” According to the playbook “responses tend to be militarized.” And the “playbook can also be a trap” and “lead to bad decisions.” When I was a boy and I didn’t want to do something hard, I came up with excuses too, which my father correctly dismissed as immature rationalizations. Nobody ever seems to have taught Obama this lesson and so he rationalizes his own weakness with adolescent excuses and gets away with it. 
Obama took office set on differentiating himself from the “cowboy” he preceded, a term that both his supporters at home and abroad used as a derogatory term. “Cowboy” here meant recklessness in foreign policy, an idea that is debatable, but with which a good portion of the American public agreed. George W. Bush may or may not have been a cowboy in that sense. But he certainly was a cowboy in a more positive sense. First, he acted like a man. When confronted with a challenge he did not lightly back down. When American credibility was on the line, he remained firm. This mature and honorable aspect of Bush’s presidency is something that Obama not only rejects -- it’s evidently something he can’t even comprehend.